Judaism discovered

Defense Mechanisms

The claims of Talmudic apologists when faced with a critique of sacred Judaic texts reverberates among them with astonishing uniformity of envenomed spleen. The tack they take runs like Jeremy Dauber's, in his work, Antonio's Devils: "Certain anti-Semitic Orientalists would cull rabbinic literature for damaging quotations to be decontextualized and leveled against contemporary Jews... misusing classical Jewish texts for polemical purposes" (pp. 77 and 141). The title of Dauber's book is a reference to Shylock's antagonist in The Merchant of Venice. Dauber assaults Johann Andreas Eisenmenger and faults him for his influence on the Enlightenment, but cannot bring himself to list Entdecktes Judenthum, Eisenmenger's towering, anti-Talmudic masterwork, in his bibliography; at least not in the 2004 first edition ("original printing"), wherein he jumps from "Eisen" to "Eisenstein" on p. 323.

"Context" is everything for the defenders of the Talmud. Fair enough. But by "context" they do not mean taking into account the surrounding text, but rather submitting to Judaism's own narrative about itself, which includes how it presents problem Talmud texts to non-Judaic audiences. In their eyes, "misuse" of knowledge of rabbinic texts consists in employing those texts for



138

"polemical" purposes. But no polemic against Judaism is permissible, however authentically contextual it may be. Dauber is one of that sect of peculiar mirror-world thaumaturgists that one encounters in Judaic studies: someone who is oblivious to how much what he accuses Christianity of, is actually true of Judaism. He writes, "...so many Christian interpreters did violence to the Biblical text's plain meaning-often for overtly or covertly polemical reasons" (p. 76). This is an exact description of the rabbinic method of Bible interpretation: doing violence to the plain meaning of the texts.

The rabbis even deny in many cases that there is a plain meaning. Dauber, with the insouciance born of extreme Zionist chauvinism, is oblivious to the absurdity of his remark. It is enough that he states it and gentiles believe it; anything else is "antisemitic." This pattern of intimidation and thought control is repeated with monotonous effect, by thought cops and apologists for Judaism. It is a stock response, intended to frighten off the opposition, premised mainly on the moral authority of the declarative sentences issued by the "expert" on Judaism. Debate ("polemic") on the part of informed skeptics and critics of Judaism is not permitted, since it constitutes the "misuse" of a scholar's knowledge of rabbinic texts. Debating tactics and polemical tools are reserved solely for rabbis and their allies, along with just a dash of permissible dissimulation to leaven the burden of swallowing the pottage. And when deception and "out of context" statements serve to advance Judaism, they are all well and good, of course: speaking of a Judaic favorite of his, Dauber writes, "Obviously, to a certain extent, (Moses) Mendelssohn denies that he is polemicizing, but a certain degree of disingenuousness is natural in this context." Now we appreciate what Mr. Dauber means by "context" — deceit that is permitted to Judaics and forbidden to their critics (on pain of being tarred as "antisemitic"). Therefore, the first principle that must be grasped in any study of this religion: 1. Judaism is fundamentally totalitarian; its leaders and advocates don't accept the legitimacy of opposition. 2. It's a special linguistic world, with its own semantic values, even apart from what is literal and what is figurative, and until even very advanced students of Judaism have discerned and mastered the linguistic devices and semantic values peculiar to Judaism, they are bound to go astray in their study of it.

.

139

This writer contends in the following pages that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament or of the God of Israel, but rather that Judaism's gods consist of the Talmud, the Kabbalah and racial self-worship. We further assert that Christianity is the only religion that represents the Old Testament creed of Yahweh, being the continuation and prophetic fulfillment of the Old Testament in the Gospel of the Messiah of Israel.

This book is intended for the benefit of all mankind, but due to the temporal power exerted by adherents of the ideology it unmasks, it may become a target of proscription and vilification. I ask those who would suppress it or subject its author to obloquy, the question Paul asked of the Galatians, "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"

The weird cult of "Judeo-Christianity," is an oxymoron found on the lips of many Christians including even conservative ones. This abominable "Judeo-Christianity" contrivance is of a piece with the cloning of human and animal genes or any of the other alchemical mixtures of two mutually contradictory substances which we have witnessed these last few decades in the modern cauldron. The near-universal approbation and currency exerted by this cockamamie term exposes at one glance the level of abysmal historical ignorance which obtains today. The Church Fathers knew of no "Judeo-Christian" tradition, since Judaism did not exist before Christ. Before Him, there was the faith of the Israelites as it gradually decayed and was subverted by corrupt teachings such as were transmitted by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

"...the system of the Rabbis...who, in regard to doctrine, seem to be of the sect of the Pharisees...believe that God delivered to Moses, while he abode on the mount, not only the whole written law, as we find it in the Pentateuch, but likewise an explanation or interpretation of it, which they call the Oral law, which was not written, but verbally communicated by Moses to Aaron, Eleazer, and his servant Joshua. By these it was transmitted, by tradition, to the seventy elders; by them to Ezra and the prophets, who communicated it to the men of the great synagogue, from whom wise men of Jerusalem and Babylon received it. In this manner, we are told, were these interpretations of the law handed down, by oral tradition, till the end of the second, or beginning of the third century, when, in consequence of the dispersion and depressed state of their nation, it was thought necessary to commit to writing, and the work was undertaken by Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, i.e. the

140

Holy, then rector at the school and president of the Sanhedrin at Tiberias, who compiled and arranged them...and the book into which it was thus collected...is what they call the Mishna, which is a Hebrew word signifying repetition...The Jews tell us that it was not until about A.D. 215 when he was far advanced in years...(that) Rabbi Jehuda or Judah completed the Mishna...Dr. Prideaux supposes it to have been about the year 150, and Doctors Lightfoot and Lardner suppose it was finished about 190...The...Mishna, with its commentators, Maimonides and Bartenora, was published, with Latin translation and notes, at Amsterdam, by Surenhusius, in six volumes folio (in) 1698..."

This corruption was greatly escalated when a portion of the Israelites rejected the Messiah, Yashua (Joshua, i.e. Jesus), after which their leaders eventually made their way to Babylon, where the corrupt and reprobate, oral occult tradition of the elders was committed to writing and compiled as the Mishnah, comprising the first portion of the Talmud. At that juncture, the religion of Judaism was born. Richard Kalmin of the Jewish Theological Seminary Talmud Department in New York has published a book, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine: Decoding the Literary Record. The content of the book is described in the following words, "Kalmin demonstrates how Babylonian rabbis interacted with the non-rabbinic Jewish world, often in the form of the incorporation of centuries-old non-rabbinic Jewish texts into the developing Talmud, rather than via the encounter with actual non-rabbinic Jews in the streets and marketplaces of Babylonia. Most of these texts were 'domesticated' prior to their inclusion in the Babylonian Talmud, which was generally accomplished by means of the rabbinization of the non-rabbinic texts. Rabbis transformed a story's protagonists into rabbis rather than kings or priests, or portrayed them studying Talmud rather than engaging in other activities, since Talmud study was viewed by them as the most important, perhaps the only important, human activity. Kalmin's arguments shed new light on rabbinic Judaism in late antique society. Beyond the obvious impact of Iranian society and the Zoroastrian religious milieu in which the Babylonian rabbis flourished, Kalmin convincingly argues for the inclusion of a wide variety of other factors that determined the

141

nature of Babylonian rabbinic discourse. These influences rendered the Babylonian Talmud a tapestry of diverse cultural, religious and political features."

It is the pagan Talmud — consisting of abominable wickedness, prodigious filthiness and superlative vileness forged in the melting pot of rabbinic Babylon — which is the hermeneutic system of Orthodox Judaism. According to Robert Goldenberg, Professor of Judaic Studies at the State University of New York: "The Talmud was Torah. In a paradox that determined the history of Judaism, the Talmud was Oral Torah in written form, and as such it became the clearest statement the Jew could hear of God's very word.

"...The Talmud provided the means of determining how God wanted all Jews to live, in all places, at all times. Even if the details of the law had to be altered to suit newly arisen conditions, the proper way to perform such adaptation could itself be learned from the Talmud and its commentaries...The Talmud revealed God speaking to Israel, and so the Talmud became Israel's way to God."

The religion of Judaism as it has been known since it was concocted after the crucifixion of Christ is what is called "Orthodox" Judaism today. We do not here concern ourselves with the supposed "Reform," "Conservative" and Reconstructionist branches of the synagogue because they do not accord the Talmud the supreme authority which Judaism does; nor do the "Reform," "Conservative" and Reconstructionist congregations have equal legal status in the Israeli state. For example, conversion to Judaism within the Israeli state is only recognized if performed by the Orthodox Rabbinate. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000) defines "Orthodox Judaism" as "Traditional Judaism." It goes on to state, "The term 'Orthodoxy' was first applied in Judaism in 1795 as a distinction between those who accepted the written and oral law as divinely inspired and those who identified with the Reform movement. The Orthodox believe that they are the sole practitioners of the Jewish religious tradition....Orthodoxy involves submission to the demands of halakhah as enshrined in the written and oral law and in the subsequent codes and responsa."

142

Moreover, according to some academics the trend is toward the shrinking of Reform adherents and the growth of Orthodox Judaism: "Ultra-Orthodox British and American Jews are set to outnumber their more secular counterparts by the second half of this century according to research by a University of Manchester academic. Historian Dr. Yaakov Wise says...European ultra-orthodox Jewry is expanding more rapidly than at any time since before World War Two. Almost three out of every four British Jewish births, he says are ultra-Orthodox...According to Dr Wise and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Professor Sergio Delia Pergola, Israel is experiencing similar changes. Dr Wise said: 'If current trends continue there is going to be a profound cultural and political change among British and American Jews - and it's already well on the way' ... By the year 2020, the ultra-Orthodox population of Israel will double to one million and make up 17 per cent of the total population. A recent Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics report also found that a third of all Jewish pupils will be studying at Charedi (Hasidic) schools by 2012...In America too...ultra-Orthodox Jewish numbers are growing rapidly. Professor Joshua Comenetz from the University of Florida says the ultra-Orthodox population (in the U.S.) doubles every 20 years..."¹¹⁵

The Reform movement's derogation of the Talmud was rejected under the leadership of Orthodox Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), born in Hamburg, Germany, "Hirsch...recognized the need for effecting a revision within Judaism of externals, but rejected changes affecting the principles of Jewish faith proposed by the Reform wing, or alterations in the observances of the Law. In Hirsch's opinion the Jews, rather than Judaism, were in need of reform. Jews were in no need of 'progress' (the catchword of the reformers) but of 'elevation.' ...[H]e defended the Hebrew language as the sole language for prayer and instruction of Jewish subjects."

Liberal "Reform" synagogues stand in the same relationship with Judaism as Unitarians who deny the Resurrection of Christ do with regard to Christianity: both represent a fundamental negation of the founding precepts

143

of the religion they claim to profess. "Reform" (and in some cases "Conservative") synagogues that deny the obligations of the Talmud, do not constitute the religion of Judaism. They are ethnic and cultural offshoots that share in common with Orthodox Judaism, "the tormented dignity of their racial-communal history." Many liberal and secular Judaics exhibit nearly the same chauvinism and racism as believers in the Talmud, by their racial solidarity with fellow Judaics without regard to their religious views, and their embrace of the ideology of Zionism: "Secular Israeli Jews hold political views and engage in rhetoric similar to that of religious Jews..For religious Jews, the blood of non-Jews has no intrinsic value; for Likud (political party of Begin, Shamir and Netanyahu) it has limited value...Most foreign observers do not realize that a sizeable segment of the Israeli Jewish public holds these chauvinistic views...The world view of Likud politicians, enthusiastically supported by followers, is basically the world view of religious Jews; it has undergone significant secularization but has kept its essential qualities."

Reform Judaism has its roots in the maskilim, individuals who subscribed to the tenets of the Haskala, or "Jewish Enlightenment" which began to fully develop in the middle of the 18th century in Europe. A maskil such as Moses Mendelssohn of Prussia, sought civic and political emancipation for Judaics under Christian governments by, mutatis mutandis, mitigating the harshest aspects of Talmudic-rabbinic religion, such as book burnings, floggings, beatings and murders — all directed at apiskorum (Judaic "heretics"). Inevitably this involved modification of the halacha itself and the gradual abandonment of the theology of Orthodox Judaism. The goal of maskilim such as Aaron Halle-Wolfssohn was to demonstrate to gentile rulers that not all Judaics were alike and that the charges made against the sacred texts by scholars of the stature of Eisenmenger were false. However, Judaic nationalism was often as virulent among the liberal maskilim as it was among the Orthodox rabbinic-Talmudists: "...Mendelssohn's most powerful articulation of his philosophy: the laws and commandments of Judaism are based on the society of ancient Judaism, which therefore no longer confers legislative obligations, only moral ones, on contemporary Jews...This does not imply, however, that

144

Mendelssohn denied the concepts of Jewish covenant and special destiny; on the contrary he connected revelation with the special destiny of the Jewish people." Talmudic halakha was derogated but Judaic ethnocentricity was upheld because the derogation of the Talmud was seen as a vehicle for Judaic advancement and power in the modern world. These are the strategic and philosophical roots of the Judaic "Reform" synagogues, which predominate in the United States, as of this writing. In the case of Joseph Perl and other advanced Maskilim from the later period of the Galician Haskala, much inside information about Judaism was revealed in the course of their anti-Hasidic campaign. We will have more to say about this.

No "Judeo-Christian" Tradition

The early Church recognized Christianity as having been founded by Israelites and representing the only true religion of the Bible. It is Christians who are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..." (I Peter 2:9). Judaism was not viewed as the repository of the spiritual truths or knowledge of the Old Testament, but as a post-Biblical, Babylonian cult totally at variance with Biblical Christianity. True Israelites could only be Christians, not followers of Judaism. The followers of Judaism are anti-Biblical; they had to violate the Old Testament in order to reject Jesus, for the "Scriptures testify of me."

One need only start with the historic Christian attitude toward sex and the body and contrast it with Judaism's teaching in these matters, to discover a vast and unbridgeable chasm which is nowadays obstructed and falsified in a frantic effort to appease and placate rabbinic power. Augustine, in his Tractatus adversus Judeos declared rabbinic Judaism to be the counterfeit of true Israel. Augustine declared that Judaism was "Israel according to the flesh," carnal Israel.

For Christians, the essence of the human being is the soul, for Judaics it is the body, hence their worship of their own race as the type of God.¹¹⁹ Virginity is highly problematic in Judaism where defilement is defined as failure to engage in the sex act. "Anyone who does not copulate, it is as if he

145

had spilled blood." The rabbis forbid virginity. On this subject of sexuality alone it is impossible to speak of a "Judeo-Christian" tradition. That Christ and His Gospel are betrayed by those who declare an alleged "Judeo-Christian" tradition, is of no discernible concern to the ministers, popes and pundits thus engaged. They are Jewish Pharisees in all but name, engaged in the standard modern apologetic misinterpretation of Judaism, out of "fear of the Jews" and a need to ingratiate themselves with the "god of this world." John Chrysostom: "The Jews disdained the beauty of virginity, which is not surprising since they heaped ignominy on Christ himself, who was born of a virgin" ("Homily On Virginity").

There is no fundamental opposition between spirit and matter in Judaism. When Jesus declared in John chapter 6 that "the flesh profiteth nothing" he was violating the oral tradition of the Pharisees: "Rabbinic anthropology differs in this respect from.Christian-anthropology...there is not a fundamental metaphysical opposition between (body and soul)..." Judaism celebrates the body to such a sordid extent that it even has a defecation prayer which every Talmudic male is commanded to recite every time he relieves himself: "Blessed art thou O Lord...who has made the human in its orifices and holes." Everything about Orthodox Judaism is either a distortion or a falsification of the Old Testament because it is is based on anthropomorphic traditions that void the Old Testament by means of a series of dispensations and loopholes. These begin with the Mishnah, which represents the commitment to writing of the occult legends and lore of those Israelites who had preserved "secret knowledge" which had arisen with the worship of the golden calf, of Molech and similar abominations. With the rejection of their Messiah and the commitment of the formerly oral traditions to writing, these Israelites completely abandoned themselves to a perversion which had once been only a persistent underground stream polluting Israel, but after Christ's crucifixion, emerged as the main ideology of those who refused to accept Jesus as their savior.

146

Later Talmudic rabbis styled this primary canon of written Judaism as Mishnah. The term signifies "oral tradition learned by constant repetition." The connotation is derived from the Hebrew denotation, the root sh-n-y, meaning "to repeat." Within the text of the Mishnah proper, it is called halakot, literally, "extra-Biblical law." Babylonian Jewish tradition in Talmud tractates BT Berakot 5a and BT Shabbat 31a teach that the Mishnah and the rest of the Talmud (Gemara) were given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai, along with the Ten Commandments. The Mishnah was completed at the end of the Second Century A.D., more than 100 years after the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The exceptions are the tractates Sotah and Abot which are later additions misrepresented as a part of the original Mishnah by the rabbinic "sages" themselves (deceit compounding deceit). Engulfed in a sea of prolix cogitations, Talmudic texts can be minefields of deception and pits of derangement and bogus reasoning, as befits those who would replace the Bible with their own authority. Most of the laws of the religion of Judaism have no Biblical warrant; they contradict and nullify the word of God.

Where the sufficiency of Scripture is denied, the fallacies and imaginings of man come to the fore. The Talmud is one of the largest collections of such fancies and human error; sometimes intriguing and colorful, titillating the senses with the phantasmagoria of the Aggadah, but more often sordid, blasphemous and asinine, in spite of the intellectual prestige accorded its rabbinic authors. There is a joke among those Judaic persons who might be described as resentful and reluctant "Jews"—those who are regularly swindled by the rabbis, by the kashrut (kosher food) racket and oppressed by the multiple other forms of fraud and thinly veiled taxation foisted on them by their watchdogs and masters. This joke ridicules the fact that so much of rabbinic law, from the burden of keeping a separate kitchen for meat and dairy products, to the wearing of the ever-present head covering for men, is not of God, but derived from man-made tradition. The joke is related herein because it illustrates rather well the type of Talmudic "reasoning" that became authoritative when the Pharisaic party rejected Israel's Messiah, and formally codified the anti-Scriptural precepts of the elders, by committing them to writing as the basis of the novel religion of Judaism, as opposed to the exclusively Old Testament foundations of Christian Israel. The joke is occasioned by the bitterness of the Judaics

147

toward the judicial decision of Rabbi Joseph Karo, who imposed taxation on them for the support of indolent "Talmud students," including married men who sometimes spend a lifetime loitering in a kollel. In the matter of labor, the esteemed Halakhic codifier Karo superseded that other giant of rabbinic jurisprudence, his medieval predecessor, Moses Maimonides.

Maimonides had decreed that Talmud students should work at least nominally, since this was the practice of the important early Pharisee, Hillel the Elder. But Karo decided that Talmud students do not have to engage in work and could be supported by taxes. Karo declared that "we must assume that he (Hillel) engaged in labor only at the beginning of his studies...How can we assume that when Hillel became famous the people did not give him support?"

It is not difficult to see that Rabbi Karo has drawn his assumption from thin air. To underscore the arbitrary nature of these out-in-the-ozone rabbinic rulings, the joke has it that a man quits Judaism and the first thing he does is remove his kippah, or skullcap. A rabbi challenges him to put it back on, but the disgruntled man replies that the rabbi will first have to furnish proof from the Bible that a head-covering for men is required. The rabbi in the joke answers: "The Bible says: 'And Abraham went' (to some destination). Can you imagine that he went without a head-covering?"

The rabbi's "reasoning" via his own imagination is very familiar to those acquainted with the works of Karo, Rambam, Rashi and Hillel, to say nothing of the oeuvre of the Gentile-hating mystagogues of the Kabbalah, such as Isaac Luria, Nachman of Bratslav and Shneur Zalman of Lyady.

A common rabbinic defense against criticism of the more blatantly horrible passages in the Talmud, is the allegation that the Talmud is only a record of debates (mahloket) between tanna'im and amora'im and that by seizing on one portion of the controversy and upholding that passage as authoritative, the critic errs, for no legal sanction is given to either side of the debate in Talmud. This is disingenuous, since the Mishnah and subsequent Talmudic amplifications of it, comprise Judaism's dogmatic halakhah by which every believing orthodox Judaic person is enslaved down to the most minute and intimate particulars of his or her daily life. Karo's having supplanted Maimonides' ruling is derived from and justified by the Talmud.

148

How Talmudic law is deduced and adjudicated is often a mystery to the non-Judaic mentality, but that it constitutes halakhah is undeniable. The key point here is that the appearance of Talmudic indeterminacy does not preclude law-making by majority rabbinical consensus, which is the process by which Talmudic law is formed, both in terms of the decision on what constituted the oral law of the elders as presented in the Mishnah {halakhah lemosheh misinai), as well as the subsequent Mitzvot derabanan (rabbinical commandments) found in the Gemara, arising from the deductive process known as Middot shehatorah nidreshet bahen.

As a public relations ploy, certain rabbis and Zionist leaders pretend otherwise, revealing the low opinion they have of the public, whom they believe will swallow the line about the Talmud being a mere book of debates, where no clear teaching or law-making emerges, even though this claim is demonstrably false. The cunning intent behind the deliberate sowing of this misapprehension rests in the stratagem that by promoting the idea that the Talmud is a collection of debates meaning everything and nothing, no indictment of the Talmud is possible, since another text can always be cited to contradict the offending one. But in practice the investigator need only examine the historic discipline and practice of Judaism from its codification after the crucifixion of Jesus to the rise of liberal-apostate Judaic groups during the eighteenth century European Enlightenment, to ascertain that a body of law codified in the Talmud exerted the most profound command over individual Jews and governs their behavior. Following the trail of that body of law begins with linking it to the corresponding Orthodox Judaic practice that has arisen from it. By this means we discern the synthesis of seemingly opposing tendencies that forms the Talmudic dialectic.

What is disputed in the Talmud is often the Yud Gimmel Midot, not the Halacha I'Moshe MiSinai. In presenting the Talmud to the public this distinction is often not made. Debates about which dishes can be washed on shabbos and how they may be washed are plentiful in the rabbinic texts. If someone wants to draw the conclusion from disagreements along those lines that there are disagreements about the core of the halacha itself among the gedolim, they may do so, but by doing so they reveal themselves as rachmana litzlon (an uneducated simpleton). Rules of derivation and procedure {Yud Gimmel Midot) cannot compare with the oral law itself, which rabbinic legend has it that God gave to Moses {Halacha I'Moshe MiSinai).

Chazal never disagree concerning the dogma of Halacha I'Moshe MiSinai; they often disagree on procedural matters that derive from the Yud Gimmel Midot. To the rachmana litzlon they insinuate that the Talmud is a debating society where everything is on the table. This insinuation reveals their contempt for the non-Judaic who dares to check into this matter.

If it is Halacha I'Moshe MiSinai, it must be accepted, but if it is derived from the Yud Gimmel Midot, it can be debated. The Talmud rules that a Judaic who borrows an article must pay the Judiac owner of the article if it is lost or stolen while in the borrower's possession. Although this is not found in the Bible, it is derived by the Talmud from a Kal Vachomer, one of the rules of Talmudic exegesis that provides that if a lenient case has a stringency, the same stringency should apply to a stricter case. The Kal Vachomer states that, "If a paid bailee, who is not responsible for injury or natural death of the animal entrusted to him, is nevertheless liable for its theft or loss, then a borrower, who the Torah explicitly renders liable for such injury or sudden death, should surely be liable for such theft or loss." This particular application of the rule can be subject to interpretation, but not the law that undergirds it. Using the record of Talmudic discussion and interpretation to claim that Judaism is a free-flowing debating society is almost too asinine to comment upon, yet numerous gentiles troubled by the theses of critics of Judaism, when given a line of malarkey about the Talmud being a series of debates swallow it because they swallow the legend that Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament prophets from which was born western civilization's concepts of free will, freedom of conscience and thinking for one's self. In truth, Judaism is wholly alien in relation to that noble western ethic. The Agudath Israel rabbinic publication Hamodia summed it up in the issue of 19 Adar 5763 (Feb. 21, 2003), p. 14: "From time immemorial, every G-d-fearing Jew subjected his personal and communal affairs to the guidance of his Rav (rabbi), understanding the folly of following the dictates of his own heart or mind."